SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) INITIALLY the writ application was filed by the petitioner for quashing the report of the Joint Director, Handloom and Resham, Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, (respondent no. 6) whereby the petitioner 'sappointment was found to be invalid and also for quashing letter no. 1110 dated 9.7.2004 whereby the Director approved the report and directed the respondent no. 5 for cancelling petitioner 'sappointment. I.A. No. 6002 of 2005 was filed, since during the pendency of the writ application final order terminating petitioner 'sservice was issued on 4.10.2004. Amended prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 4.10.2004 whereby he has been terminated from his service with immediate effect. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to give all consequential reliefs on account of quashing of the order of termination.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents all statement made by the petitioner has been admitted, but it has been stated that since the General Manager was not competent to make any appointment on Class -Ill posts, petitioner 'sappointment was illegal. There is no reply in the counter affidavit regarding different stand taken by the authorities in case of the appointment of Subhash Chandra Yadav, who was also appointed by the General Manager. There is no whisper in the counter affidavit as to why two sets of consideration were applied while enquiring the legality of appointments of the petitioner as well as Subhash Chandra Yadav.